This morning on "Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) weighs in on the Obama Administration's explanations for what happened in a U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi.

Regarding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's claim of responsibility in overseeing U.S. embassies and consulates around the world, Chaffetz says he's glad someone is finally stepping up.

"I'm glad to see the Secretary of State – at least somebody's taking some personal responsibility," Rep. Chaffetz says. "But leading up to it, how did we get to the point where we diminished security in a very volatile type of situation? I think it's somewhere between patently false and totally misleading, this story that the administration spun coming out of this. They never said that terrorism was one of the potential parts of this. They very emphatic this was a video, this was a mob, this was whatever words they used. But clearly it was terrorism."

Chaffetz adds, "Look, when the Vice President came out in the debate and said, well, we had no idea they asked for more security. Ignorance is not really a great defense and even when Secretary Clinton said, look, security professionals made these decisions – no they didn't. The security professional that testified at the Committee said, 'We were under professional to come up to normal, quote, unquote, 'normalized' on a political timetable.' That is very concerning. When the security professional on the ground is saying we need more resources, just a few more resources, those are denied. In fact, they were diminished."

Rush transcript available after the jump.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, (R) UTAH: Thanks for having me.

O'BRIEN: So you heard Secretary Clinton saying, listen, it's my decision, I'm responsible for the 60,000 people who are in charge. Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani was on our program and it was very kind of an intense debate we had going. And here's what he said about it being a cover-up. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI, (R) NEW YORK CITY: Susan Rice goes out there four days after, says this was a spontaneous demonstration; it clearly wasn't. There was information both in the State Department and the White House that it wasn't. There was no protest in advance.

O'BRIEN: But my question to you, and what I'm saying -

GIULIANI: This sounds like a cover-p. I mean, if this weren't a Democratic president, I think all of you people would be going crazy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: So you have before said that you thought it was coordination between the State Department and the administration to come up with a story that was sort of was around a protest that we now know did not exist. He's saying cover-up. Do you believe it was a cover-up?

CHAFFETZ: I think there are a couple parts to this story. The run up that led to 9/11, what happened that night, and then moving forward and the bungled story. I mean, it's five weeks later and we still don't have some crystal clear answers.

I'm glad to see the Secretary of State – at least somebody's taking some personal responsibility. But leading up to it, how did we get to the point where we diminished security in a very volatile type of situation?

I think it's somewhere between patently false and totally misleading, this story that the administration spun coming out of this. They never said that terrorism was one of the potential parts of this. They very emphatic this was a video, this was a mob, this was whatever words they used. But clearly it was terrorism.

O'BRIEN: They sort (INAUDIBLE). One of the things we lacked yesterday in our interview with Mr. Giuliani was literally, specifically, what people had said. And it was Susan Rice who on the 16th, on "Meet the Press," who was much farther out than everybody else.

She said, "Assessment – what happened in Benghazi was in fact a spontaneous reaction to what had transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat demonstration of the facility in Cairo prompted, of course, by the video."

She was the one who was furthest out. If you look at what Jay Carney said and if you look at what the president said, they did not go as far. They were weak on saying terror, but they also didn't quite say video. They sort of referenced both of them.

CHAFFETZ: No, the day or two afterwards, we'll have to pull up the quote but Jay Carney went even further than that. And so the problem is that you had 230 security incidents there in Benghazi, you had the assassination attempt of the British ambassador, the bombing of the Red Cross (ph), the Brits get out of there, it's Libya, we're coming up on 9/11 –

O'BRIEN: Is that incompetence or is that a cover-up? Right? Because I think everyone would say huge intelligence screw-up, no question. Is it just incompetence or is that – intentional cover-up to me sort of implies there's some kind of criminal act under it all.

CHAFFETZ: Well, look, when the Vice President came out in the debate and said, well, we had no idea they asked for more security. Ignorance is not really a great defense and even when Secretary Clinton said, look, security professionals made these decisions – no they didn't. The security professional that testified at the Committee said, "We were under professional to come up to normal, quote, unquote, 'normalized' on a political timetable."

That is very concerning. When the security professional on the ground is saying we need more resources, just a few more resources, those are denied. In fact, they were diminished.

O'BRIEN: So incompetence or cover-up, right? Cover-up is a –

CHAFFETZ: OK, well, that's the first part of it, the lead-up to it. But then what went down that night? And what was the story that was being spun afterwards? Because I went to Libya two Saturdays ago. I was there a good part of the day. Never once did a single person ever mention a video.

Now, you talk to people on the ground, you talk to people that are involved in this incident, where is the evidence that this video was core and central to the administration's story moving forward? So, look, I think it's still an unanswered question. I really do.

O'BRIEN: Can we talk about the debate for a moment? We're going to have you all morning so we can chat about this. Who do you think a town hall format favors?

CHAFFETZ: Oh I don't know. Look, if you're going to be the President of the United States, you better do good sitting at a table and standing. I don't buy this whole idea that one – We talk about it like it's a sports game. You're going to the President of the United States, you got to step up. You got to be able to –

O'BRIEN: Well, I would guess for both, right? You're going to have regular folks standing up and you have to sort of take questions in a non-completely moderated –

CHAFFETZ: Look, President Obama did exceptionally well in this format before. Really haven't seen Mitt Romney in this type of format. We have, what, 19, 20 something debates during the primary? But most of them were not this town hall format, so the president's expectation was so, you know, after his last performance, so low, he's undoubtedly going to exceed that. I'm sure he'll do pretty well.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: I think there's more pressure on Mitt Romney because he did so well last time.

O'BRIEN: Do you think there's more pressure?

(CROSSTALK)

ROMANS: The expectation game is an interesting kind of calculation, don't you think?

O'BRIEN: All right, we're going to keep you around with us. We appreciate you staying with us all morning. We really love having you.

It was quite evident that this whole portion of the debate was planned and a complete set-up. Obama knew he was going to get a question on Libya, and so he planned to use this answer no matter what the question, hoping it would suffice. Once Romney tried to question his answer, Obama looked at Candy and said, "get the transcript." Now, just how did Obama know she had the transcript in front of her unless they had preplanned the whole scenario? Umm, just a little suspicious, don't you think?
On top of everything else, Obama never even tried to answer the original question . . . again showing he had planned to use the one answer he gave as a generic.
Really sad that they had to try and ambush Romney in order to avoid the whole topic. It didn't work, however, since the truth came out that same night, raising even more questions that need to be answered. Really sad AND stupid.

Bias Confirmed – I've posted 2 thoughtful comments here that could be considered critical of CNN and they've been "moderated" out...

O'Brien has a pleasant disposition, but this pathetic attempt to cover for the President by grasping for alternative meanings in a vague Nostradamus like reference to terror in his speech should be seen for what it is. If I was President and really believed it was a terrorist attack, why would I allow a different narrative to continue to be told by those that report to me? Would I then repeatedly condemn the crazy movie that was the foundation for the alternative narrative instead of correcting the false narrative? O'Brien and the President insult the intelligence of viewers to think anyone would be gullible enough to believe that the President really believed it was a terrorist attack the day after this tragedy. O'Brien shows her bias quite clearly in this reporting by grasping for alternative conclusions by ignoring the facts in whole and it hurts CNN's reputation for unbiased reporting.

to candy crowley.....GEE, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT ROMNEY WAS GOING TO HAVE TO DEBATE BOTH YOU AND OBAMA, AT THE LAST DEBATE. YOU WERE WRONG IN SAYING WHAT YOU SAID. YOU ALSO CHOSE SIDES. YOUR EXCUSE FOR MOVING THINGS ALONG IS JUST AN EXCUSE, YOU KNEW EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE DOING...TRYING TO MAKE ROMNEY LOOK LIKE A FOOL, AND LETTING EVERYONE KNOW YOU ARE A BIG OBAMA FAN. YOU WERE A TERRIBLE MODERATOR, AND I HOPE THEY NEVER CALL YOU TO DO IT AGAIN. THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION OF THE NIGHT SHOULD OF BEEN ABOUT LIBYA, AND MORE THAN ONE QUESTION ABOUT IT....AND EVEN THEN...YOU INTERRUPTED THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION THERE WAS. YOU NEEDED TO SHUT UP AND LET THEM TALK. BAD JOB.

It was incompetence up to the incident. It appears to be a cover up since. He said he declared it as an act of terror on the day after the incident. If he did actually say Benghazi was an act of terror the day after the incident, why all the conversation ending with a speech given before the UN, blaming it on a video? – It seems to be a cover-up to me. The goal is to prevent questioning about Presidental competence until after the election.

The director of the video has been arrested (on what grounds?!!). President Obama and Secretary of State broadcast a video in Pakistan (I think that's the country), declaring that the US had no part of the video (isn't that obvious?). These actions seemed to support that the administration really believed that the violence in Benghazi was because of the video.

I also just listened (again) to President Obama's speech on 9/12. He was not declaring what happened as a terrorist attack, or if he was, he was saying it as softly, as delicately as possible. He did not say "act of terror", he said "No ACTS of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation". The evidence that it's at the least unclear what he was saying is that immediately after his speech, a reporter calls out, "Mr. President, was this an act of war?"

It is most urgent and appropriate to cite that the identities several Terrorists who murdered U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and several U.S. Defense Contractors and two U.S. Navy Seals were previously photo-identified in the U.S. Satellite and Drone data bases over Iraq and libya, but concealed from the several U.S. Crime data bases by the U.S. justice , US State, and US DoD.
Thereby, these concealments of Satellite & Drone photo intelligence did criminally compromise the lives of Ambassador Stevens and other Victims of the Terrorist attack on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
PREFACE: Incidentally, it is of interest to note: Charlene R. Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs at the U.S. Department of State did not mention (therefore, concealed by “ommission”) on October 10, 2012 in Washington, DC , that a U.S. Intelligence Satellite was taking photos of U.S. Ambassador Chritopher Stevens every five seconds while he was attacked by al Queda at U.S. Consulate, Benghazi, Libya, U.S. DoD, Satellite photograph Grid coordinates 32 07 N 20 04 E. U.S. Intelligence photo Satellites were recording a photo every five seconds, before, during, and after the murder of U.S. Ambassador Stevens..
Two former Navy SEALs - Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods - were among four Americans killed last week in Benghazi as part of a security contractor force.
On September 11, they were ensconced in the safety of an annex location in another part of the city when they got word that the main consulate building was under fire and the diplomats there – with an armed force of only nine people – were overwhelmed by the deteriorating situation.
Doherty and Woods, along with other security personnel, left the secure annex and made their way to the chaotic scene, rounding up the consulate staff who were under attack and guiding them back to the second safe building. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19605322
Deputy Charlene R. Lamb did not mention (therefore, …she “concealed by ommission”) these easily recovered U.S. Intelligence Satellite photos that could be matched against the U.S. Sinjar photos held at U.S. MA, West Point and in the the other KH 11 & KH 12 Satellite photo data bases over Iraq and Libya.
Was Deputy Assistant Secretary Lamb or her counterpart also likely involved in the concealment of Satellite & Drone photo evidence at Benghazi, Libya. Ambassador Stevens paid with his life as a result of said concealments.
: SEE: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/state-department-official-refuses-to-classify-libya-attackers-as-terrorists/# ;;
SEE:: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/what-we-know-about-the-libya-attack/?hpt=wo_c2
All of the foregoing links to the Terrorist torture murder TRIAL HEADED BY JUDGE MUNTHER RAOUF HAADI IN THE CENTRAL, CRIMINAL COURT OF IRAQ with guilty verdict issued against the Terrorist Insurgent , (1), Ibrahim Al-Qaraghuli, during 18 October 2008 for torture murders of PFC Kristian Menchaca & PFC Thomas Tucker.
… U.S. Col. Rafael Lara and the U.S. Task Force Lara headed and U.S. ATTORNEY GNL. HOLDER & Secretary of State Clinton operated CRIMINAL “EVIDENCE COVER-UP” of (1) Satellite photographs and (2) CIA photos of CIA operated and paid enlistment of Sunni Muslims into the U.S. Created “Awakening” movement : : U.S. CIA AGENT PAID “IRAQI ‘AWAKENING’ AGENTS” TORTURE MURDERED CAPTURED US SOLDIERS, PFC KRISTIAN MENCHACA & PFC THOMAS TUCKER, 2006, IN SATELLITE PHOTOS. The identification of the U.S. paid “Iraqi ‘Awakening’ Agents” in said Satellite Photos can be made by comparing CIA photo Records of its own data base of CIA operated and CIA paid enlistment of Sunni Muslims into the U.S. Created“Awakening” movement. SEE:http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=16167
…This astounding condition was concealed prior to and during trial of (1), Ibrahim Al-Qaraghuli & (2) Kazim Al-Zowba’i & (3) Walid Al-Kartani headed by Judge Munther Raouf Haadi in The Central, Criminal Court of Iraq with guilty verdict issued against the Terrorist Insurgent , (1), Ibrahim Al-Qaraghuli, during 18 October 2008. (2) Kazim Al-Zowba’i & (3) Walid Al-Kartani were released as Iraq had no science available to process DNA collected against (2) Kazim Al-Zowba’i & (3) Walid Al-Kartani.
…The U.S. Task Force headed by U.S. Col Rafael Lara representing the United States and advised with oversight involvement by U.S. Attorney General Erik Holder did not make evidence available that would show that (1), Ibrahim Al-Qaraghuli & (2) Kazim Al-Zowba’i & (3) Walid Al-Kartani were members of “U.S.-CIA-paid-Iraqi-’Awakening’-Agent-Terrorists” of al Queda / al Shura . SEE:http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=16167
..SEE:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html?pagewanted=print
…Moreover,“U.S.-CIA-paid-Iraqi-’Awakening’ -Agent-Terrorists” of al Queda / al Shura were Satellite photographed as torturing to death U.S.A. PFC Kristian Menchaca & U.S.A. PFC Thomas Tucker “AND” this evidence, in a corrupt effort at concealment, was not presented by U.S. Col. Rafael Lara and the U.S. Task Force he headed and U.S. ATTORNEY GNL. HOLDER & Secretary of State Clinton to Judge Munther Raouf Haadi in The Central, Criminal Court of Iraq on or before 18 Oct 2008 when he issued what amounts to a “U.S.-GOVERNMENT-CONCEALED-EVIDENCE-’TAINTED’-VERDICT.”
Charlene R. Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs at the U.S. Department of State, testifies on Capitol Hill as a diagram of the U.S. compound in Benghazi is displayed behind her on October 10, 2012 in Washington, DC. The hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee focused on the security situation in Benghazi leading up to the September 11 attack that resulted in the assassination of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. (Credit: Getty Images)
During Wednesday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) questioned Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb about her apparent refusal to call the people who attacked the U.S. Consulate in Libya and killed four Americans “terrorists.”
“You Miss Lamb…have described these attackers in a number of ways but you don’t mention terrorist at all. Why is that? I mean the compound had been attacked once before and breached,” Burton said. “And these people had all these weapons; projectiles, grenades, all kinds of weapons. Why would you call this anything other than a terrorist attack? And why do you call them attackers?”
“I have just presented the facts as they have come across. I am not making any judgements on my own and I am leaving that to others,” Lamb replied, completely avoiding the question.

O'Brien has a pleasant disposition, but this pathetic attempt to cover for the President by grasping for alternative meanings in a vague Nostradamus like reference to terror in his speech should be seen for what it is. If I was President and really believed it was a terrorist attack, why would I allow a different narrative to continue to be told by those that report to me? Would I then repeatedly condemn the crazy movie that was the foundation for the alternative narrative instead of correcting the false narrative? O'Brien and the President insult the intelligence of viewers to think anyone would be gullible enough to believe that the President really believed it was a terrorist attack the day after this tragedy. O'Brien shows her bias quite clearly in this reporting by grasping for alternative conclusions by ignoring the facts in whole and it hurts CNN's reputation for unbiased reporting. I tried posting this candid comment earlier, but it apparently didn't pass the unbiased filter – let's see if this makes it...

O'Brien has a pleasant disposition, but this pathetic attempt to cover for the President by grasping for alternative meanings in a vague Nostradamus like reference to terror in his speech should be seen for what it is. If I was President and really believed it was a terrorist attack, why would I allow a different narrative to continue to be told by those that report to me? Would I then repeatedly condemn the crazy movie that was the foundation for the alternative narrative instead of correcting the false narrative? O'Brien and the President insult the intelligence of viewers to think anyone would be gullible enough to believe that the President really believed it was a terrorist attack the day after this tragedy. O'Brien shows her bias quite clearly in this reporting by grasping for alternative conclusions by ignoring the facts in whole and it hurts CNN's reputation for unbiased reporting.

Soledad is incredibly condescending and apparently routinely edits footage to slant evidence to her favor. She must be desperately insecure about her intellect to sabotage the truth so strenuously. And she dares to be snide to her guests as if she has actually accomplished anything beyond the worst excuses for journalism. Wake up CNN. MSNBC got into a lot of trouble for editing footage. You really condone Soledad's work "ethic"? Save your reputation for more significant players.

I'm appalled but not surprised that CNN is trying to aid in the White House's distortion of the facts regarding the terrorist attack on the embassy. This story is gaining momentum simply BECAUSE the left wing media continues to act as if the President hasn't lied. The charge that Romney/Ryan were politicizing the event, is equally lame. Oblamer and Axelrod have done this for them by trying to white out the facts, muddy who said what when, and squirm their way out of a bad choice in the first place. They consciously decided to tell a lie to the American public days after the murders and continued to shape their lie as best they could as the fallout rained down. Bad decision. Very few Americans 'believe' a word of the liberal fairy tale and it keeps getting worse for the Obama Administration. One lie leads to three more and all the while the public is hardly as gullible as the liberal left would like. No this is going to undermine this President's re-election, along with his dismal economic record and consistent blame tactics. We may not know all the facts, but we know this administration has done everything in it's power to disguise and hide the truth.

I never watch her show. I am only on this web site looking for a decent transcript of a Crowley apology to former Gov. Romney for her completely unprofessional interjection last night (an incorrect one at that), in favor of Obama. We all know the media is 95% democrats, Crowley included. I would like to pretend there are still a couple of professionals out there who know to keep personal preferences for a candidate to themselves. Personal preferences have no place in reporting or moderating. CNN you have lost a viewer, this time for good.

Soledad..defending Obama makes you look stupid!
I am a woman, Independent, & anyone who keeps up with the real news knows that this administration is covering up!
We are to believe that Obama called this an act of terror in the Rose Garden, but flew off to a fund raiser right after the speech?
PLEASE!

Nice how CNN replays the Giuliani clip, but fails to add his obvious frustration with O'Brien's avoidance of discussing Susan Rice's post attack damage control tour on 5 morning news shows. They claim they had limited intel, yet her response the day after pointing to the cause being a protest run amok due to an anti-islam film was fairly detailed. O'Brien could never discuss these details, just harped on veracity of quotes from Obama that Giuliani was referencing, which doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. Then she repeats it here again with Chaffetz. O'Brien's job as a reporter is to uncover the facts. She is spending an inordinate amount of time here in the weeds, noodling with semantics, more concerned with indicting her interviewees rather than truly doing her job and providing factual context.

Agreed. I am more concerned about the requests for security in the weeks and months prior to the terrorist attack than even the intent to hide that it was 'spontaneous' and could therefore, not be anticipated. The anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 2001 should always lead to heightened security anyway.

And...what the heck happened to Soledad? She was (along with Anderson Cooper) one of the few journalists who I really trusted. Soledad, in the past few months, has lost my faith. In fact, CNN as a whole has. Too bad. I feel like CNN has become a sell out.

I am surprise that the commentators at CNN would side with the O'Bama administration regarding issues so
critical to the United State of America. They are suppose to investigate what is the truth and only the truth
and not cover-up. I will not watch her show again.

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.